Search Climate Insights Directory

The peer review concludes that the Greenhouse Gas Assessment (GGA) and Climate Resilience Assessment (CRA) are comprehensive and follow international best practices, though it identifies gaps in the quantification of the Social Cost of Carbon and questions the overall project impact rating. While the project's GHG emissions are rated as 'VERY LARGE' and water scarcity risks as 'HIGH', the reviewer notes that the project's justification relies on existing South African energy policy, which remains a point of contention.

The review concludes that the Yzermyn underground coal project's EIAR and EMPr are of poor quality, failing to address critical concerns raised by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Department of Water Affairs (DWA), and Department of Mineral Resources (DMR). Key failures include the lack of updated specialist studies for the 'best environmental option', inadequate assessment of acid mine drainage (AMD) and its long-term decant risks, and a failure to account for cumulative impacts on 'irreplaceable' biodiversity and water resources. The reviewer asserts that the project's focus on surface 'footprint' impacts ignores wider landscape-scale damage to Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) and the Grassland Important Bird Area. Furthermore, the review finds that the Environmental Authorisation was granted despite these deficiencies, relying on misleading information and failing to apply the NEMA principles of sustainable development.